Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Kingwell


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dylan Kingwell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a child actor, known mainly for guest roles rather than major ones. Every actor who exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article -- he must actually pass an WP:NACTOR criterion for an article to become earned. The only role here that is "major" enough to count toward NACTOR, however, is The Returned (U.S. TV series) -- but we require multiple major roles, not just one, before NACTOR is passed just for having had roles. And the award nomination criterion is not passed by the "Joey Awards", which are a non-notable PR stunt for young actors and not a top-level acting award on the order of the Oscars or the Emmys or the Canadian Screen Awards. So the only criterion we can evaluate this is whether there's enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG -- which there isn't, because apart from one routine casting announcement of the type that any actor could always show for any role, all of the other valid sources are "local boy shoots for the big time" pieces from his hometown local media. This is not enough sourcing to get an actor over NACTOR or GNG, and due to the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have a standing practice of being especially vigilant about the notability of minors. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger claim of notability and better sourcing, but nothing here is enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unsure Had found sources and have added them. But does pay to have a look :) --TheDomain (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition to co-lead on The Returned, Kingwell has key role as leads brother on ABCs The Good Doctor which has been confirmed for a second season following viewing figures of 16.9m for the season 1 premiere . Kingwell will also be featuring more prominently in the second season of A Series of Unfortunate Events as the TV series reflects the novels. Also, ALL award ceremonies are PR stunts, any reader of the article will be able to form an opinion as to the prestige of the Joey Awards by virtue of the name recognition.
 * Awards on the level of the Oscars or the Emmys or the CSAs, photo opportunities or not, are organized and recognized by the industry at large, and garner actual media coverage. The "Joey Awards" are organized by one woman and garner no media coverage at all, and exist primarily to help child actors be able to add "award-winning" or "award-nominated" to their PR bumf since a child actor getting an Oscar or Emmy or CSA nomination is rare. That's what I'm talking about: the question of whether an award is notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable for the honour is a question of whether the presentation of that award gets covered by the media as news or not. Oscars/Emmys/CSAs yes, because the media coverage is there — Joey Awards no, because the media coverage isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete unless we have compelling evidence for notability, we should not have articles on people under age 18. The evidence here is in no way compelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Agree, we should not have articles on minors as there is no compelling reason to do so in this case. --EC Racing (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.